[alasdair_]

> If you are moved by it, you don't need to have it explained to you. If not, no explanation can make you moved by it.

I respectfully disagree. Watching Schindler’s List as an eleven year-old barely had an effect on me. After it was explained to me I found it tremendously heartbreaking.

[atoav]

You are right in the idea that context (down to the title of a film) matters. However I think they meant something else there. I make films myself and context matters for everyone. But there is a class of people who cannot enjoy a film if they don't get it. If there isn't a clear didactic lesson to be learned in the end or a unifying functional theory that explains all of the films elements they are unable to enjoy the thing.

Which is weird, because the same people usually enjoy watching a sunset without explaination, have no problems liking a Van Gogh without knowing why precisely he painted crows over the field and let's not even talk about music.

Some people see it as an insult if your film isn't 100% self explainatory or at doesn't at least pretend it by smuggling the more ambigous ideas in the guise of something else (like good hollywood films).

For people that watch films in that way, the whole enjoyment of a film is connected to the feeling of having it deciphered. However — this way they are missing a big part of what is possible with the medium. Like if you'd only listen to music you can rationally explain the existence of each note for. Some things have no valid explaination, they just are. Stalker is one of these. Like the crows on Van Goghs field, you don't really need to have them explained to you to have them touch your soul. Not every soul will be touched by the same thing — but let's at least try.

[alasdair_]

Great response - thank you!